ABSTRACT:A research project was undertaken for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine the relative utility and effectiveness of four well‐known multicriteria decision making (MCDM) models for applications in realistic water resources planning settings. A series of experiments was devised to examine the impact of rating and ranking procedures on the decision making behavior of users (e.g., planners, managers, analysts, etc.) when faced with situations involving multiple evaluation criteria and numerous alternative planning projects. The four MCDM models tested were MATS‐PC, EXPERT CHOICE, ARIADNE, and ELECTRE.Two groups of analysts and decision makers were tested. One group consisted of experienced U.S. Army Corps planners, while the other was comprised of graduate students. Based on a series of nonparametric statistical tests, the results identified EXPERT CHOICE as the preferred MCDM model by both groups based largely on ease of use and understandability. ARIADNE fostered the largest degree of agreement within and among the two groups of individuals tested. The tests also lend support to the claim that rankings are not affected significantly by the choice of decision maker (i.e., who uses any of these MCDM models) or which of these four models is u